What logical error is this worldwide flood argument? - Think Atheist2015-03-31T22:41:16Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/what-logical-error-is-this-worldwide-flood-argument?commentId=1982180%3AComment%3A1188844&xg_source=activity&feed=yes&xn_auth=noSadly, this comes back to the…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-10-05:1982180:Comment:11898382012-10-05T06:24:03.397ZJames Coxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JamesCox
<p>Sadly, this comes back to the same place on a previous thread, anything that might appear to be a vey logical limitation on any biblical claim/myth, will be meet with 'its a miracle'.</p>
<p>Sadly, this comes back to the same place on a previous thread, anything that might appear to be a vey logical limitation on any biblical claim/myth, will be meet with 'its a miracle'.</p> I've just received a new emai…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-10-04:1982180:Comment:11896572012-10-04T19:36:12.985Zarchaeopteryxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/xn/detail/u_2gskiyna07rt3
<p>I've just received a new email from Bill Seng, the main Christian commentor on the <a href="http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.com/2012/09/proof-of-worldwide-fl..." rel="nofollow" target="_blank">World Wide Flood blog</a>, directing me to a section of what I've already characterized as the Confirmation Bias capitol of the world, <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v5/n1/Abraham-chronology-ancient-Mesopotamia" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Answers In Genesis</a>. On this…</p>
<p>I've just received a new email from Bill Seng, the main Christian commentor on the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.com/2012/09/proof-of-worldwide-fl..." target="_blank">World Wide Flood blog</a>, directing me to a section of what I've already characterized as the Confirmation Bias capitol of the world, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v5/n1/Abraham-chronology-ancient-Mesopotamia" target="_blank">Answers In Genesis</a>. On this site, the author, Matt McClellen, has written an article, "<em>Abraham and the Chronology of Ancient Mesopotamia.</em>" In his article, McClellen presents a table, which I won't bother to reproduce here, entitled, "<em>Traditional Chronology of Ancient Mesopotamia</em>," beginning with the <strong>Hassunah Period</strong>, 5800-5500 BCE, all the way down to the <strong>First Dynasty of Babylon (Hammurabi)</strong>, 1895-1594 BCE.</p>
<p>This table has been produced by an actual Mesopotamian historian, Alfred J. Hoerth, Director of Archaeology Emeritus at Wheaton College, who, in the field of Biblical archaeology (about which, he has written several books), takes a maximalist view of the Bible vs history - that is to say, he tends to accept the Bible as historical, then sets out to prove it, a Confirmation Bias point of view, one would think. Below the table, presented on AiG, he even lists his book title, publication date and page number data:</p>
<blockquote><p><b>Table 1.</b> The traditional chronology of Early Mesopotamia (after Hoerth 1998, p. 35; Roux 1992, pp. 501–508).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Bear in mind, this table is being used by Mr. McClellan as evidence for his claims, but he still isn't satisfied with this biblical maximalist's point of view, as evidenced by the disclaimer he feels he needs to make before presenting you with Hoerth's table:</p>
<blockquote><p>"A Bible-believing Christian will, of course, reject the dating of the oldest periods but, as mentioned in the introduction, this paper will not discuss these older periods as it will be shown below that they will have no effect on how we date Abraham."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Laugh, I thought I'd cry - I thought my pants would never dry --</p> Personally, I don't see it as…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-10-04:1982180:Comment:11896422012-10-04T16:53:57.851Zarchaeopteryxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/xn/detail/u_2gskiyna07rt3
<p>Personally, I don't see it as "<em>toilet humor.</em>" If an event of this sort - hundreds, if not thousands, of animals packed inside an air-tight boat for a year - had actually happened, methane gas buildup is a problem that would have inevitably occurred, yet it's one no one seems to consider when the feasibility of housing animals in an ark is considered.</p>
<p>WE know the story's bullshit, but when dealing with those with the mentality of a child, one needs to be sure all bases are…</p>
<p>Personally, I don't see it as "<em>toilet humor.</em>" If an event of this sort - hundreds, if not thousands, of animals packed inside an air-tight boat for a year - had actually happened, methane gas buildup is a problem that would have inevitably occurred, yet it's one no one seems to consider when the feasibility of housing animals in an ark is considered.</p>
<p>WE know the story's bullshit, but when dealing with those with the mentality of a child, one needs to be sure all bases are covered and no wiggle-room allowed.</p> I tend to use ' ..' for sarca…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-10-04:1982180:Comment:11897172012-10-04T13:24:05.400ZJames Coxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JamesCox
<p>I tend to use ' ..' for sarcasm.</p>
<p>Can you have a theory without some attempt to being logical about it? If you have varifiable evidence, some good set of generalizations, and some falsifiability test, maybe and 'idea' could come up to the height of a 'theory'.</p>
<p>Else maybe an hypothesis is your thing, something a little more vage, a feeling, some supposition, like 'I saw a bright light in the sky, moving from north to south, was it god giving me an omen?' Connecting 'god' and…</p>
<p>I tend to use ' ..' for sarcasm.</p>
<p>Can you have a theory without some attempt to being logical about it? If you have varifiable evidence, some good set of generalizations, and some falsifiability test, maybe and 'idea' could come up to the height of a 'theory'.</p>
<p>Else maybe an hypothesis is your thing, something a little more vage, a feeling, some supposition, like 'I saw a bright light in the sky, moving from north to south, was it god giving me an omen?' Connecting 'god' and 'omen' might create an untestable, frustrating, but politically useful hypothesis, that could offer the most amazing traction in a troop of fools/subgeniuses, but 'theory' it is not. Suggesting that 'I saw a bright light in the sky, moving from north to south, was it a piece of rock falling to earth?' This could be tested, under some basic conditions, like following the rock to the ground, looking for a crater, etc. This might be close to the standing of a 'theory'. I suppose if you burn your hand on the damn thing, you might be tempted to return to your first idea. LOL</p> (Damnit, I was almost through…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-10-04:1982180:Comment:11894702012-10-04T12:06:27.037ZSteveInCOhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/SteveInCO
<p>(Damnit, I was almost through typing something really good and suddenly I fat fingered something and Google started loading--bye bye, masterful prose....)</p>
<p>My goal talking to theists who claim to have rational reasons to believe is precisely TO force them to pull the faith card. At that point they are forced to realize (especially after I rub their noses in the steaming pile they just dropped) that ultimately there is no rational argument for their position. They may then make the…</p>
<p>(Damnit, I was almost through typing something really good and suddenly I fat fingered something and Google started loading--bye bye, masterful prose....)</p>
<p>My goal talking to theists who claim to have rational reasons to believe is precisely TO force them to pull the faith card. At that point they are forced to realize (especially after I rub their noses in the steaming pile they just dropped) that ultimately there is no rational argument for their position. They may then make the claim that no position, including mine (atheism takes faith that there is no doG, don'tcha know) can be rationally justified, but my point--that they have no rational basis--is still made.</p>
<p>Does that stop them from repeating the same line about having rational reasons to believe, on the next non-believer conversion prospect they run into? Nope, most Xians in apologetic mode are willing to repeat arguments they've been forced to concede are wrong; it's the Xian version of taqiyya. Saving the soul they are talking to is of overriding importance (and given their [very faulty!!!] premises, honestly, I can't blame them for thinking like that).</p>
<p>(Another fun one is getting them to concede that their notions of absolute morality is ultimately based on their subjective choice of which doG to believe in. Usually they spot that trap before I can quite close it on them but their flight reflex is fun to watch. And if they are honest with themselves, they might figure something out when they think about it later.)</p> So you destroy his argument i…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-10-04:1982180:Comment:11896312012-10-04T11:46:07.915ZSteveInCOhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/SteveInCO
<p>So you destroy his argument in a toilet-humory way and all he can see is the humor... not just that you (so to speak) blew his whole "theory" away. (I shouldn't dignify it with the word "theory" as that puts it on par with something epistemically respectable like evolution, so I had to use sarcasm-quotes.)</p>
<p>So you destroy his argument in a toilet-humory way and all he can see is the humor... not just that you (so to speak) blew his whole "theory" away. (I shouldn't dignify it with the word "theory" as that puts it on par with something epistemically respectable like evolution, so I had to use sarcasm-quotes.)</p> Surely humans at the time wer…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-10-04:1982180:Comment:11894612012-10-04T05:49:25.666ZJames Coxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JamesCox
<p>Surely humans at the time were not all duds. Could it be that the Flood Story was a attempt to reverse the theist sense that they were losing in the market of public opinion, of their day?</p>
<p>'See our guy can build a BOAT, fill it with animals, and save the WORLD! We spit on the rest of you!' Just over the mountain from there the locals can't see what all the fus is about. Was the story only ment for a easily impressed few? 'N' years latter we are stuck with a failed editing job? </p>
<p>Surely humans at the time were not all duds. Could it be that the Flood Story was a attempt to reverse the theist sense that they were losing in the market of public opinion, of their day?</p>
<p>'See our guy can build a BOAT, fill it with animals, and save the WORLD! We spit on the rest of you!' Just over the mountain from there the locals can't see what all the fus is about. Was the story only ment for a easily impressed few? 'N' years latter we are stuck with a failed editing job? </p> Did anyone mention the concep…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-10-04:1982180:Comment:11896012012-10-04T02:38:44.211ZTomhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/TomNoonan
<p>Did anyone mention the concept that watercraft date back to the neolithic period (around 10,000 years ago). So to quote Joe Rogan on the subject of Noah, "All those other people with boats, their shit didn't work."</p>
<p>Did anyone mention the concept that watercraft date back to the neolithic period (around 10,000 years ago). So to quote Joe Rogan on the subject of Noah, "All those other people with boats, their shit didn't work."</p> It's not that I expected you…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-10-04:1982180:Comment:11893862012-10-04T02:10:23.521ZSteveInCOhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/SteveInCO
<p>It's not that I expected you to take me on faith, it's that I figured most people who do this sort of thing would actually know the difference; i.e., I expected you knew the difference already and just hadn't been thinking clearly. For what it's worth, I recognize now that I should have included a link with my original post.</p>
<p>If your purpose was in fact to postpone until you had time to do a fact check, a simple "I'm really busy right now, but I'll look into that" would have covered…</p>
<p>It's not that I expected you to take me on faith, it's that I figured most people who do this sort of thing would actually know the difference; i.e., I expected you knew the difference already and just hadn't been thinking clearly. For what it's worth, I recognize now that I should have included a link with my original post.</p>
<p>If your purpose was in fact to postpone until you had time to do a fact check, a simple "I'm really busy right now, but I'll look into that" would have covered it, instead of what looked for all the world like evasive and/or dismissive behavior (and I hate to say it, but you have a <em>reputation</em> for dismissive behavior in these sorts of circumstances). Readers could have decided whether to check it or not at that point; at least they know to proceed with caution.</p>
<p>If you really do want to look into this at some future date, I can give you some information that will help you get started; you can verify this info quickly, the reasoning process is slightly harder to come to on one's own but can certainly be validated once you've verified my facts.:</p>
<p>The two calendars look very similar but differ in two respects:</p>
<p>1) The Julian calendar defines every fourth year to be a leap year; furthermore, in the CE, it's years divisible by four (4, 8, 12, 16.... 2008, 2012, etc. (And BCE, 1BCE (which is the year before 1CE) is a leap year, as is 5, 9, 13... etc. BCE.) The Gregorian calendar has <em>almost</em> the same rule. But the Gregorian does not consider century years that are not divisible by 400 to be leap years, so, for instance, 1600 (century year divisible by 400) is a leap year on both calendars, but 1700, 1800, and 1900 are leap years <em>only</em> on the Julian calendar.</p>
<p>Thus the Julian calendar year averages 365.25 days, while the Gregorian calendar year averages 365.2425 days. And since we know the difference is three leap days in the space of 400 years (e.g., 1600-2000; three Julian leap days are "skipped" by the Gregorian calendar), we can figure that, if in hypothetical year X, January 1 falls on the same day, then in year X+400, the Julian calendar will show January 1 the same day the Gregorian Calendar shows January 4. (As soon as an extra leap day shows up in the Julian calendar, it falls a day behind, because it has a February 29 while the other calendar has moved on to March 1. This process repeats two more times during the 400 years.)</p>
<p>2) Now for the other difference. Right now, today, the two calendars are <em>not</em> in sync. It happens that the Julian Calendar day is 13 days behind the Gregorian one; today is October 3 on the Gregorian, and September 20 on the Julian. It has been like this since March of 1900. The exact value of that difference is the second parameter of the math I am about to do. Here <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proleptic_Gregorian_calendar" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proleptic_Gregorian_calendar</a> is a table of the difference by centuries, from 1 CE to 1582, when the Gregorian calendar was actually introduced. You can extend the process into BCE territory and conclude the difference was 20 days (or so) in the 2300s BCE..</p>
<p>It's entirely possible I slipped somewhere and I am off a couple of days, or I may even have got a sign backwards. Regardless, worst case, it's less than a month's difference. And if you go back to Eusebius-the-lying-bastard's 2900s BCE date, it won't add much. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader.</p>
<p>For what it's worth, if I had to guess--and I will state up front that it is a guess--as to why they could be off by 600 years, I know many parts of the chronology given by the Bible are open to interpretation, and this is not an issue of honesty; it truly is difficult to untangle ancient peoples' timekeeping conventions--our serially numbered years as opposed to regnal years are a relatively recent invention. The example I remember hearing (and my memory could certainly be wrong) is that many people assume that no two judges (from Judges) served simultaneously, while others assume there were different judges in different parts of the "promised land" at the same time. The latter group is going to consider the book of Judges to have spanned less time, than the former will.</p>
<p>I believe modern scholars come down on the side of concurrent judges... but Eusebius was neither modern nor an honest scholar, I'd almost bet he thought the judges terms were consecutive not concurrent. What Ussher did I do not know. In any case it's one <em>possible</em> source of the discrepancy, or a portion thereof. I suppose one could compare the two chronologies side by side and see where they start to diverge as you go further back into the past, to zero in on the cause of the disagreement.</p> I'm sure he found me very try…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-10-03:1982180:Comment:11893562012-10-03T21:08:24.840Zarchaeopteryxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/xn/detail/u_2gskiyna07rt3
<p>I'm sure he found me <em>very</em> trying --</p>
<p>I'm sure he found me <em>very</em> trying --</p>